Rabbi Zweig explores Rashi (רש"י)'s teaching that treasures found in plague-stricken houses belonged rightfully to the Jews, as the Amorites' lease on the land had expired forty years earlier when their sins reached their full measure.
Rabbi Zweig addresses two fundamental difficulties in Rashi (רש"י)'s commentary on the plague of houses in Parshas Metzora. Rashi explains that finding plague in one's house was actually good news, as it would lead to discovering treasures that the Amorites had hidden in the walls during the forty years the Jews wandered in the desert. The first difficulty is why Rashi limits this to only the forty years of Jewish wandering, ignoring treasures that might have been stored earlier. The second difficulty is why Rashi switches from the Torah (תורה)'s generic term 'Canaan' to specifically mention 'Amorites.' The resolution lies in understanding the Bris Bein HaBesarim (Covenant Between the Parts), where Hashem (ה׳) told Avraham that his descendants would be enslaved for four hundred years before returning to the land in the fourth generation. The reason for this delay was that the Amorites' sins had not yet reached their full measure (lo shalmu avon Emori). This gave them a temporary lease on the land that belonged inherently to the Jewish people. The crucial insight is that this measure of sin was completed not when the Jews entered the land, but at the time of the Exodus from Egypt. The Jews were supposed to enter immediately after leaving Egypt, but their own sins in the desert delayed their entry by forty years. However, the Amorites' lease had already expired at the time of Yetzias Mitzrayim. This means that during those forty years of Jewish wandering, the Amorites were essentially illegal tenants on Jewish land. According to Jewish law, when someone illegally occupies another's property, all profits from that land belong to the rightful owner. Therefore, any wealth the Amorites accumulated during those specific forty years was legally owed to the Jewish people as back rent and profits from their own land. Rashi specifically mentions Amorites rather than the generic Canaanites to emphasize the legal basis for this transfer of wealth. The reference to 'avon Emori' (sins of the Amorites) in the Bris Bein HaBesarim provides the halachic framework for understanding why this money belonged to the Jews by right, not by conquest. This distinction is crucial because it means the hidden treasures were not spoils of war (kibush milchamah) subject to the usual restrictions, but rather the collection of a legitimate debt. Even in cases like Jericho, where there was a cherem (ban on taking spoils), this principle wouldn't apply because the Jews were simply reclaiming their own property, not conquering enemy wealth. The Torah's description of this as 'good news' thus takes on deeper meaning - it represents divine justice in ensuring that the Jewish people received compensation for the illegal use of their ancestral land during the wilderness period.
Rabbi Zweig challenges Freudian psychology by arguing that the basic human drive is not pleasure-seeking but rather the painful awareness of non-existence, and explains how only a relationship with God can provide the feeling of true existence and simcha.
An exploration of the deeper meaning of 'amirah' (saying) as empowering others by recognizing their uniqueness and building meaningful relationships through authentic, individualized communication.
Parshas Metzora
Sign in to access full transcripts
